Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BARNES v. MILLER

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois


December 19, 2005.

BO BARNES, Plaintiff,
v.
BAKER, MILLER, MARKHOFF, & KRASY, LLC, and ARLINGTON KAUFMAN, McCLINTOK, STEEL, and BARRY, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MICHAEL MIHM, District Judge

ORDER

This Order is in response to Plaintiff's recent filing in this case. The following is a brief history of this case is necessary to understand the nature of Plaintiff's current request and this Court's findings.

Plaintiff filed a Petition to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees in this case on July 13, 2005. In response to this Petition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to inform the Court of the basis of his lawsuit and to state exactly what relief he was seeking from the Defendants. The Court further informed Plaintiff that if he failed to file such a document prior to August 19, 2005, his Petition to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees would be denied and this matter would be terminated. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court's Order and therefore his Petition was denied and the case was terminated on August 23, 2005. On October 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees. On November 7, 2005, the Court denied the Motion to Reconsider because the Motion was largely an effort to have the Court address the allegations stated in his Complaint and not the decision regarding the Petition to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees. In its Order, the Court noted that the only allegation in Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider that was appropriate for a Motion to Reconsider was Plaintiff's allegation that he had already paid the filing fee. A review of the record indicated that the filing fee had not been paid. In denying his Motion to Reconsider, the Court informed the Plaintiff that if he could prove that he had paid the filing fee in a timely manner, the Court would be willing to consider a motion to reopen the case.

  In response, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court stating that he paid his filing fee and included a copy of the money order. However, upon review of Plaintiff's contentions, the Court realized that Plaintiff may have possibly brought a similar case against a different group of defendants. That case 05-1229 was assigned to the other District Court Judge in this Division. Although it was not clear if the Plaintiff in each case was the same individual because the first names were different, there were sufficient indications in the Complaints of each case to indicate that they were being brought by the same person. Accordingly, the Court issued a text order in both cases informing the Plaintiff that there was no way to determine from the Court's file whether the filing fee submitted by the money order was intended for payment of the filing fee in the instant case (05-1199) or in 05-1229. The Court also ordered the Plaintiff to advise the Court regarding which case the money order should have been docketed in and to submit the filing fee for the other case. Finally, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to inform the Court if the Plaintiff in each case was the same person.

  In addition to the previous order, the Court issued another order in the instant case reminding Plaintiff that the Court's Order dated July 7, 2005 required Plaintiff to "inform the Court of the basis of his lawsuit and exactly what he is seeking from the Defendants" and advising that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider did not adequately provide this information. Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file within 14 days a brief, cogent explanation of the legal basis for his lawsuit and informed the Plaintiff that upon receipt of that document and resolution of the issue regarding the filing fee, the Court would then determine whether the case should be reopened.

  On December 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court stating:

I want the court to refund my 250. I will file a new case. Bo Barnes and Lorry Barnes are the same person. Thank you, Bo Barnes. This 250 money order was for case #1:05-cv-1199 Barnes v. Baker, Miller, Markoff, and Krasny.
(Case No. 05-1199, Docket Entry #5, Dec. 12, 2005).

  Plaintiff has not set forth any legal basis for the Court to refund his filing fee in this case (case number 05-1199). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a refund is denied and case number 05-1199 remains terminated. Additionally, with respect to the other pending case, (case number 05-1229), to date, the Court has not received the required filing fee. Therefore, Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days to pay the required filing fee. If the filing fee is not received prior to this date, Plaintiff's case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this dismissal will constitute an adjudication on the merits.

20051219

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.